Bill C-10 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of that Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds — and should provide opportunities for Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) is fair and equitable as between broadcasting undertakings providing similar services,
(iii) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities, and
(iv) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which that Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on a class of broadcasting undertakings if doing so will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(d) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(e) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(f) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(g) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(h) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(i) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(j) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(k) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Canadian Heritage

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me interpret that. What he is saying is that information will be censored, that certain videos will be moved to the top and others to the bottom, and that the government will dictate which is which.

Over the weekend, the minister had yet another blunder. Every time he goes out to “clarify” the intent of Bill C-10, he makes things worse. Within 24 hours, he had to issue two clarifications and an apology. It is obvious the minister does not know what is in his very own bill. It is so bad that just moments ago, the parliamentary secretary had to do the press conference instead of the minister.

Why does the government continue to try to defend the indefensible?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. The bill is not about what Canadians can or cannot post online. It is very explicit in this regard. Helping Canadian artists and creators is at the heart of what Bill C-10 does. It actually gives them more opportunities to meet their own artists and creators. It does so by making sure that big streaming companies pay their fair share to our culture. It also ensures that Canadian artists are discoverable on these platforms. Our creators cannot afford to wait any longer.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the heritage minister first started coming under fire for Bill C-10, he insisted that YouTube content would not be censored. However, just yesterday the truth slipped out. Uh-oh. In an interview he said, “at some point the CRTC will be asked to put a threshold.” Wait a minute. With one breath the minister says YouTube users have nothing to worry about, but in his next breath he says that at some point they will be censored.

Why does the minister want to dictate to individual YouTubers what they can and cannot post?

Canada Elections Act

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member points out something really important, and that is, first, that we need to acknowledge the fact that the Liberals just moved time allocation, which means they are trying to rush this legislation through without fulsome debate. That is very problematic because it is chipping away at democracy.

The second point the member raises is with regard to Bill C-10, which has to do with government censorship of the information that we post on our social media platforms. This is a huge overreach on behalf of the government and something that is not properly researched.

Interestingly enough, Bill C-19 is one and the same, where, again, I believe it goes too far and ignores the voices of witnesses and those who have expertise in this area. It is shameful.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is good to enter the discussion on this important subject. We are seeing a debacle of epic proportions on Bill C-10, a bill that the minister obviously does not even understand. There are a lot of questions that Canadians have around Bill C-19 and its effect on what is one of the key things that the House is required to do, and that is to be the custodian of Canada's democracy.

Are there any parallels between the debacle that is currently unfolding with Bill C-10 and what is possible with Bill C-19, especially if the bill goes to committee, and now that the Liberals have limited debate and discussion on Bill C-19?

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I don't need to repeat that, correct? I see enough nodding heads around the room. It's a critical mass of nods, if I could use the term, to proceed in that way.

My goodness, I don't see any hands up. What is going on with this world?

Anyway, seeing that there is no further discussion or no further debate, that brings us to a vote.

Let's be clear. We're voting on Mr. Housefather's subamendment to the motion put forward by him. What it states, very simply, is that we're going to take out the part that suggests Dr. Geist as a witness and replace it by saying that we're going to have an expert panel with one witness proposed by each recognized party—one from the Liberals, one from the Conservatives, one from the Bloc, and one from the NDP—along with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We will do this as soon as possible over the next little while, before we go on to anything else. That is the subamendment.

I am pausing to see if anyone has a question for clarification.

I don't see one. We will go to a vote.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we will go back to the amendment put forward by Mr. Waugh. There are three paragraphs. In paragraph 1, he takes the word “programs” out to put in the word “contents”.

In paragraph 2, the subamended amendment is, instead of Dr. Michael Geist, we now have an expert panel of four people in addition to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Paragraph 3 would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2, which I just read.

That is the amendment from Mr. Waugh. Seeing no discussion or debate—I see a lot of thumbs up—we will go to Madam Clerk for the vote. Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings] )

Now we will return to the main motion of Mr. Housefather, which now includes three points, not two. I don't need to talk about this again. We are all clear as to what it is.

Shall the motion of Mr. Housefather carry?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

This is really important because I think most Canadians would agree that Clearview AI's situation was very concerning. We could see many more examples of this as this technology becomes more commonplace, yet we have legislation that seems to be going backwards. It's willing to protect Clearview AI rather than citizens.

I ask this because we have Bill C-10, which should have been a pretty straightforward bill about making the tech giants pay their part. Instead, it has turned into this legislative dumpster fire with the minister running around looking like a chicken with his head cut off. Our committee had brought forward really clear recommendations on the issue of privacy rights.

You're telling us, with Clearview AI, that this law is actually not taking the lessons we learned on issues like facial recognition and from the big data giants ignoring their obligations under Canadian law, but actually writing in more protections for that abuse because we're not looking at it in a human rights frame. Is that correct?

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the clever wordplay by my colleagues from the Liberal Party. What I said was this. When bills go to committee, sometimes, like with Bill C-10, they come back in worse shape because of terrible amendments put forward by the government. I would hate for that to happen to something as critical as this democratic bill, Bill C-19. When I say we should have more debate in the House of Commons, that means this bill deserves more than three hours and 45 minutes of debate.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The same thought occurs to me. After all the time we have spent on this, if the Ministers are not ready to come and testify as soon as possible, and if the new charter statement is not yet ready, we have a problem.

So, basically, I agree. I had a former colleague who used to say that, often, to come to a decent agreement, everyone needs to leave a little blood on the table. Compromises have to be made and this one seems acceptable to me. We will count on our Liberal colleagues to put all the pressure they need for the Ministers to be ready to come and testify before the committee as quickly as possible. We all agree that “as quickly as possible” is this Friday. Then, at the next meeting, as Mr. Housefather proposed, we could welcome one witness per party represented around this table. We could then finally resume our work and hope to be able to see Bill C-10 adopted. The bill is so important for our industry.

The compromise is perfectly acceptable, I feel. So I am in favour

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, this bill has only been up for debate three times and has only been debated for about three hours and 45 minutes. The minister saying the government is looking forward to getting it to committee does not leave the opposition with a lot of hope, because quite a few bills have gone to committee and come back worse. I think about Bill C-10 and the MAID bill. There are a few bills like this, and we do not have confidence that after they go to committee, they will be better bills. That is why we are in favour of having more debate on the floor for this piece of legislation, so that we can get our comments on the record and ensure that it moves forward.

The minister says the government does not want a pandemic election, so what is the big desire to rush this bill through now and call for a concurrence motion?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I have a brief comment here.

First off, I think this motion is being strengthened as we go along. Ms. McPherson has offered to change it from “separately”, and we've obviously agreed to take that out. I think that's fine.

I think point 3 is very important. It is that we would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2. We know why this is important: It is because we feel that this charter statement is absolutely necessary in order to make the best decisions going forward.

Hearing from those witnesses is going to also give us a better understanding of this bill. Here's why that is of utmost importance: We see that the Minister of Heritage himself is struggling to answer some really basic questions about this bill. If he himself doesn't have a full understanding of what this legislation does and does not do, and is not able to clearly communicate on that point, then I'm confused as to why this committee would be expected to have a clear understanding of this piece of legislation.

I think it's incumbent upon all of us, then, to seek the input from those who would be able to give us better insight and help us to clearly understand the parameters of this bill and what it does. Within that, I'm talking about witnesses, but I'm also talking about the charter statement, which we know will have fundamentally changed since the bill was first introduced in the fall, which was when the original charter statement was provided.

Obviously, because of those changes, a new charter statement is the responsible thing to seek, and it will help us do a better job as legislators and rightly represent Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Before I go to Ms. Harder, I'm starting to read the room a little better now in terms of what you just mentioned.

Mr. Rayes, were you suggesting to subamend Mr. Waugh's amendment to take out the word “separately”?

I'm seeing a lot of nods, because if a committee so desires, we can dispense with that right away.

Do I see any objection with subamending that right away?

There are no objections.

(Subamendment agreed to)

We're taking the word “separately” out of his amendment.

For those who have just joined us, such as Ms. Harder, Mr. Waugh is proposing to do the following with Mr. Housefather's motion: In point 1, he takes out the word “programs” and replaces it with the word “content”, and in point 2, he would invite the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Dr. Michael Geist to appear before the committee, and not separately.

In point 3, he would suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2.

Ms. Harder, you have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I can provide some clarification, because I've had this discussion already. There is a way by which you can.

I'll do this very slowly so that everybody understands.

Ms. McPherson was asking if we can seek unanimous consent to go back to other amendments that we've already covered under Bill C-10. There is a path to do that, and I'll go to the clerk in just a few moments to seek clarification, but this is how it can work.

You could adjourn the motion with a clarification. If you adjourn this motion—the debate on the motion—provided that you also have a clarification that you want to seek unanimous consent, it's not a dilatory motion. We can debate it if you wish, and then go to that very thing that you want to get to. Then, upon that, following that, we can go back to Mr. Housefather's motion or the amendments that have been proposed.

I hope that was somewhat clear.

I will ask the clerk. Go ahead, Aimée. Rescue this poor man.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

May I propose that points 1 and 2 stand, and that point 3, then, would read “suspend clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-10 until the completion of both points 1 and 2”? It's very simple.

I hope the clerk has notification of that by now. Points 1 and 2 would still be the same. Point 3, because you've made the ruling, would be that we suspend the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill until the completion of both points 1 and 2. That's as short as I can make it for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I call the meeting to order. Welcome back, everybody.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage as we take a look at, are concerned with and are enveloped in Bill C-10 and clause-by-clause consideration.

Before I give the floor to Ms. Dabrusin, I want to say that we likely will be interrupted towards the end of the meeting.

Now, I'm going to use Eastern Time, of course. We are anticipating that the bells will ring at 12:30 Eastern Time for a vote. The way this normally works is that if we want to extend the meeting into bells for a period of time that is okay with us, we have to ask for consent to do that. Otherwise, I just adjourn the meeting right there and then so that we can go and vote. I'm not asking you about this right now, obviously. We'll figure that out when we get there, as we are masters of our domain.

Let's go back to the topic at hand. We are considering Bill C-10 in clause-by-clause consideration.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have the floor.